NOTN-Residents packed a special Assembly meeting last night to oppose proposed cuts to city recreation facilities, warning that closures would damage public safety, youth development and the community’s quality of life.
“‘I’ve got some serious questions about the budget as proposed and how it actually balances livability.” Said one testifier, Brock.
The hearing focused on the city manager’s draft budget, which lists possible reductions to parks and recreation services, including the closure of one of Juneau’s two public pools, the Treadwell Ice Arena, and the Dimond Park Field House. City officials have emphasized the list is preliminary and intended for discussion, not a final set of cuts.
“Speaking in favor of the Juneau Douglas City Museum, my wife and I volunteer there, as do many, many other people, thousands of hours a year.” Said one testifier, Ed, “We provide a lot of information for visitors, capital tours, walking tours, the museum itself. When you lose a museum, you lose history. When you lose your history, you screw up the future.”
Speaker after speaker, including parents, children, seniors and former officials, urged the Assembly to keep the facilities open.
“‘Name me a better return on investment for the well being of Juneau than our pools in a community like ours, surrounded by water and defined by our connection to it. Access to safe, welcoming aquatic spaces is not a luxury. It is a necessity. Public Pools provide a place where people of all ages can come together, stay active and build community on any given day. Young children are being taught how to swim. Senior citizens are participating in low impact exercise. Athletes are using the gym. Parents like me are maintaining social connections. It is a shared space that strengthens the fabric of our town. For family, these pools are essential.” Said Connor, testifying in support of Parks and Rec.
Residents urged continued funding for the field house and ice arena, saying they are heavily used indoor venues that provide affordable recreation during long, dark winters.
“I’m here tonight as a social worker and advocate, and most importantly, a mother, because the people most affected by these proposed cuts are often the least able to attend in person late at night meetings.” Said Joanna, testifying on behalf of Parks and Recreation programs, “The proposed elimination of community services is not a minor budget adjustment. These are not luxuries. They are essential public infrastructure. What is most disappointing for me personally is not just the threat of cuts, but the lack of thoughtful understanding behind them.”
Some residents accused city leaders of, what they characterized as poor fiscal decisions, including spending on a new city hall and the troubled Eaglecrest gondola project.
“Mayor, City Manager, you’ve got to listen to the public. I was someone that worked for you that told the truth. I tried to go to a November assembly meeting. You made me leave.” Said KC Kregar, who has previously been trespassed from City Hall, according to a story by KTOO, he also came to discuss safety issues at Eaglecrest. “You’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a now dead gondola project. You spent millions of dollars of the community’s money not having a plan, and now you think this community is going to accept you taking away their recreational facilities.”
Some also warned that reductions to core services could drive working families away and erode trust in local government.
“Yes, our community faces some difficult decisions. But our solutions cannot be simply to take an ax to all the things that make this community wonderful.” Said Cheryl.
A few days prior to the special assembly meeting, Assembly member Nano Brooks posted to his Facebook with his own reduction proposals.
“It breaks my heart to see people pleading for recreation facilities. People are sad, people are scared and you all deserve better.” He wrote.
An assembly finance meeting took place directly following the swathes of public tesimony.
Members reviewed two lean budget options for Eaglecrest Ski Area, both designed to avoid another year of deficit spending.
At the Assembly’s request, the Eaglecrest Board and staff returned with a “bare minimum” budget built around the ski area’s traditional $930,000 general fund subsidy, and a separate, broader budget that would need about $1.68 million from the city but is the lowest level board members say can realistically support operations next winter.
Board members said the $930,000 option technically balances on paper but would cut staffing by 56%, trim operating days from about 86 to roughly 66, and shorten hours to 9 a.m.-3 p.m. all season and eliminate in‑house food service. Eaglecrest staff warned that would leave the mountain unable to reliably open lifts, respond to breakdowns or maintain safety.
Acting general manager Erin Lupro said the higher-subsidy plan still cuts staffing around 44% and keeps shortened hours, but preserves just enough capacity to run the hill, pursue a private food-and-beverage concession and continue long‑range planning the Assembly has requested.
In a split decision, the Finance Committee directed staff to calculate the cost of effectively mothballing Eaglecrest, which essentially means keeping facilities maintained but not operating, while leaving enough staff to plan for a future relaunch. Some members opposed even studying closure, but others said they need those numbers before deciding on any subsidy level.
“At some point, we’re going to be moving some stuff, we’ve got a long list for final decision.” Said Finance Chair Christine Woll, “I move that we direct somebody, and I would think this would be city staff and Eaglecrest staff, to work together to bring us back the cost for keeping Eagle Crest warm. When I hear that we can’t operate Eaglecrest at the same level of taxpayer funding that’s been going into Eaglecrest, I just have to know what the cost, if we were to not operate Eaglecrest, but maintain our infrastructure so that when a new plan for Eaglecrest arises, we can pick it back up. I think that will be expensive, but it’s hard for me to imagine justifying spending twice as many dollars of taxpayer support on Eaglecrest, given all of the feedback that we’ve gotten.”
No final decisions were made. Eaglecrest’s budget, along with youth grants and other items, remains on the committee’s pending list as the Assembly continues work on the fiscal 2027 budget.
